Originally Posted by JaneB (Post 13634349)

Guess what little prick? You are getting sued. You took a picture off my website, put circles on it and posted it on here. You also called me fat many times in that same posting. You said Greg was a drunk, which is not true. That is called defamination under the law. Since GFY did nothing about it, they can also be sued. See you in court. :thumbsup

Originally Posted by TiltMaster (Post 13644720)

Originally Posted by nudecanada (Post 13644754)

Funny thread. lol

Anyone who thinks it is actually "JaneB" posting is an idiot. It is her pimp/husband/boyfriend doing it. :upsidedow

Originally Posted by JaneB (Post 13634681)

You do know in court, you will have to prove that I am fat like you keep claiming. Have fun on that one.


Burden of proof on the defendant
In most legal systems the courts give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant. In criminal law, he or she is presumed innocent until the prosecution can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; whereas in civil law, he or she is presumed innocent until the plaintiff can show liability on a balance of probabilities. However, the common law of libel contains a kind of reverse-onus feature: a defamatory statement is presumed to be false unless the defendant can prove its truth. Furthermore, to collect compensatory damages, a public official or public figure must prove actual malice (knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth). A private individual must only prove negligence (not using due care) to collect compensatory damages. In order to collect punitive damages, all individuals must prove actual malice. The definition of "public figure" has varied over the years.